ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J Pai <jai.forums2...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Ivy - Goals for the upcoming release?
Date Mon, 22 May 2017 05:37:57 GMT
One other thing about this issue - this is reproducible (as shown in the test case) with static
revisions too and isn’t specific to any dynamic revision resolution.

-Jaikiran
On 22-May-2017, at 11:02 AM, J Pai <jai.forums2013@gmail.com> wrote:

I have had a look at that issue, this last week and I have been able to reproduce it in a
simple test case[1]. I kind of understand what the issue is in there, but given my lack of
knowledge of the Ivy codebase, I haven’t been able to figure how to fix this correctly.
In fact, this issue is what prompted me to ask this question [2] in the dev list a day or
so back, since basically comes down to those files. Here’s my understanding of the problem
(backed by that test case[1] which reproduces it).

Imagine you have a module org:hello-world and imagine it has 2 configurations conf1 and conf2.
Now consider the case where this hello-world module depends on org:module1:1.0 in conf1 (a
direct dependency) and on org:module2:1.0 in conf2 (a direct dependency). That translates
to a module descriptor like:

<ivy-module version="2.0">
   <info organisation="org"
         module="hello-world"
         revision="1.2.3"

   />
   <configurations>
       <conf name="conf1"/>
       <conf name="conf2"/>
   </configurations>
   <dependencies>
       <dependency org="org" name="module1" rev="1.0" conf="conf1->default"/>
       <dependency org="org" name="module2" rev="1.0" conf="conf2->default"/>
   </dependencies>
</ivy-module>

Now take this one step further and consider that org:module2:1.0 (that hello-world depends
on, in conf2) has a dependency of its own on org:module1:2.0. So module2’s module descriptor
looks like:

<ivy-module version="1.0">
 <info organisation="org"
        module="module2"
        revision="1.0"
 />
   <publications>
       <artifact/>
   </publications>
 <dependencies>
   <dependency org="org" name="module1" rev="2.0"/>
 </dependencies>
</ivy-module>

So ultimately, when you resolve the hello-world module, you expect it to have org:module1:1.0
as an dependency in conf1 and org:module1:2.0 as an dependency in conf2 (transitively via
org:module2:1.0).

Does the resolve work as expected for this use case? Yes it does and the resolution pulls
in the right set of dependencies in the right configurations. Internally it creates resolution
report (as an xml) plus a resolution properties file for this resolution. No (obvious/apparent)
issues at this point. 

Now, let’s say a “deliver” is triggered against this resolution, for conf1. What I would
expect is, that it would deliver a file for hello-world which then has a dependency on org:module1:1.0
in conf1 (because that’s what it was correctly resolved to previously). However, the delivered
file instead has a dependency on org:module1:2.0 in conf1 and I believe that’s the issue
being reported in that JIRA.

So is this a bug in the deliver task itself? I don’t think so. So far what I have narrowed
it down to is that the resolve task that happened previously creates more than one representation
of that resolution (one a resolution report xml and one a resolution properties file). The
resolution report XML has all the necessary and correct information about which dependency
(either direct or transitive) belongs to which configuration. However, the resolution properties
file contains the “wrong” dependency for module1 - it stores the dependency as org:module1:2.0.
I am not even sure if the properties file is capable enough of supporting/understanding dependencies
per configuration. The deliver task then uses this properties file (instead of the resolution
report XML) to decide what dependencies to write out. I’m guessing some other (post-resolve)
tasks too use this properties file for their decision making, so this really boils down to
a potential bug in what gets written out to this resolution properties file, during resolve.

Unfortunately, my reading of the code so far hasn’t given me answers on what role this file
plays and why can’t it be just skipped and the resolution report XML instead be considered
the single source of truth. Hence that question [2] in the dev list. I can’t really think
of a solution/fix for this issue, without reading more of the current Ivy code to understand
what role these files play.

[1] https://github.com/jaikiran/ant-ivy/commit/529a3fa05ed5dd115bdf8046d0cf0ffe034905e0#diff-6ed8218b6bb9460014cf3558ff227172R571
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/dev@ant.apache.org/msg45402.html

-Jaikiran

On 21-May-2017, at 10:49 PM, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org> wrote:

One thing though.

This revival of the community has been triggered by the comments on this issue:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1485 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IVY-1485>
It would be a shame if it is not fixed within the next release.

The issue and the fix are not easy to understand. Any review will be welcomed.

Nicolas

> Le 21 mai 2017 à 18:46, Nicolas Lalevée <nicolas.lalevee@hibnet.org> a écrit
:
> 
> 
>> Le 21 mai 2017 à 16:28, J Pai <jai.forums2013@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> 
>> The past few days I’ve sent some PRs for bug fixes and some enhancements in preparation
for the proposed release of Ivy. Thanks Nicolas for reviewing them and merging those that
were good enough. 
>> 
>> I’ve been using this JIRA filter [1] to narrow down on the issues to look into.
That filter essentially is of “open issues that affect 2.1.0, 2.2.0, 2.3.0 or 2.4.0 and
have been updated/created since Jan 1st 2014”. So it should cover most of the issues that
we probably should look into (doesn’t necessarily mean fix all of them, but just to check
if any of them are big enough to focus on).
>> 
>> I’ve also sent one PR for upgrading our internal library dependencies and plan
to send a couple more for similar upgrades. My intention is to use the latest released versions
of these dependencies instead of sticking with dependencies that are years old. My intention
_isn’t_ to upgrade to a version that isn’t API backward compatible, so these upgrades
are mostly bug fixes and should be “drop-in upgrades”. 
>> 
>> I would be really glad to hear any thoughts about these changes or any other/different
plans, that can get us to a releasable state in the near future, especially from members/users
who have been involved with Ant/Ivy project in the past or present. Ultimately, I think if
we can agree on a goal for the upcoming release, it will help release something that will
set the right expectation with the end users when it comes to using it. My opinion is that
we consider this release to push out some bug fixes and internal upgrades and _not_ introduce
any major features unless those are reasonably quick to implement. Once this release is done
and (hopefully some of the) community gets back behind the Ivy project, we can always introduce
major features in subsequent releases.
> 
> Sounds like a good plan.
> 
> Nicolas
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
> 




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org


Mime
View raw message